*gulp*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18972163

Should we be worried? Whats the agenda here?

I understand that it’s mostly the second (and larger) part of the LRA which is under review – the part to do with land ownership, right-to-buy and crofting rights. However, I suspect that there will be some tidying up of part 1 too. I’d like to see the introduction of some more stringent regulation of wild camping. Perhaps a stipulation that you are not allowed to “wild” camp within 500m of a public road?

Chill

Hmmm, I’m not sure either.

Chairman, David Cameron, said: “The review can learn from the success of the land reform that has already taken place over recent decades and help plan how to accelerate that.

“Community Land Scotland will play an active part in presenting evidence for further reforms to promote an ever greater role for communities in the ownership and management of their land and look forward to contributing actively to the work now getting under way

But from the above quote it doesn’t sound too bad as it seems that the current reforms have been accepted as a success so they’re not likely to go back on them.

All sounds woolly and vague at this stage. I wouldn’t worry yet.

The cynic in me thinks Salmond is out to appease the likes of Donald Trump et al.

What?

Sounds promising to me (in a let the people own the land they live on kinda way).

Given the positions of the 2 vice chairs I don’t think this will be a sop to the Trumps of this world 🙂

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/07/3328/3

2.12 MacLeod et al (2010) also found that a number of stakeholders would welcome definitional clarity in relation to particular issues such as ‘wild camping’, ‘dogs under control’ and ‘privacy’.

[quote]2.17 In summary, the evidence suggests little appetite amongst access stakeholders for significant changes to the provisions with Part One of the Act. However, concerns about some aspects of access provision have been raised, particularly by Access Authorities, in relation to perceived anomalies or weaknesses in the Act.[/quote]